Flexidig Ltd v M & M Contractors (Europe) Ltd [2021] EWHC 784 (TCC) (31 March 2021)

Flexidig Ltd v M & M Contractors (Europe) Ltd [2021] EWHC 784 (TCC) (31 March 2021)

A post-judgment freezing order is justified where there is a real risk of dissipation of assets, as evidenced by the defendant's history of non-payment, threats, and arguable dishonesty. The sums due are established by court orders and admissions. Appointment of a receiver is not appropriate as a freezing order provides sufficient protection and is less intrusive.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 784 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Flexidig Limited; Defendant: M & M Contractors (Europe) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Post Judgment Freezing Order And/or Appointment of Receiver / Post Judgment, Hearing of Applications for Freezing Order and Receivership
Outcome
Post-judgment freezing order granted in the sum of £456,930.25 (subject to credit for payments made); application for appointment of receiver refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Receivership, Enforcement of Judgments, Adjudication Enforcement, Risk of Dissipation, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Construction Law Freezing Injunctions Receivership Enforcement of Judgments Adjudication Enforcement Risk of Dissipation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flexidig Limited

Claimant

M & M Contractors (Europe) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Post Judgment Freezing Order And/or Appointment of Receiver / Post Judgment, Hearing of Applications for Freezing Order and Receivership

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a post-judgment freezing order should be granted against the defendant's assets within and outside the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a receiver is appropriate in addition to or instead of a freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the sums claimed by the claimant are sufficiently established to justify relief

Ratio Decidendi

A post-judgment freezing order is justified where there is a real risk of dissipation of assets, as evidenced by the defendant's history of non-payment, threats, and arguable dishonesty. The sums due are established by court orders and admissions. Appointment of a receiver is not appropriate as a freezing order provides sufficient protection and is less intrusive.

Court Disposition

Post-judgment freezing order granted in the sum of £456,930.25 (subject to credit for payments made); application for appointment of receiver refused.

Orders

  • Freezing order over assets of M & M Contractors (Europe) Limited up to £456,930.25, reduced by payments made.
  • No appointment of receiver.